Slippery slope

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Jan 22, 2007

One problem political debaters often encounter when using a slippery-slope argument is that it's easy to overstate one's fears. So why do so many still use them? Simple; the argument is usually prescient. The slippery slope is employed when it's easy to see that if A happens, B will follow and the next thing you know, we're somewhere in the middle of the alphabet, with one side trying to hold the line and the other pushing hard to get to Z.

In the case of anti-tobacco zealots, Z is the total prohibition of smoking. In the lifetimes of many readers, the United States has seen smokers pushed into diminishing spaces, to the point where many states, including Colorado, have some type of indoor smoking ban, even on private property. We've railed against such bans as intrusions on property rights and free association rights, and will continue to do so. We've warned that if government can ban smoking on private property such as bars, restaurants and stores, it's just a matter of time until the neo-prohibitionists set their sights on automobiles and homes. Sadly, once again, we have to say we told you so.

Under the umbrella of protecting public health, anti-tobacco activists in several communities are working to limit smokers' ability to light up in their own homes, if they live in multi- family dwellings such as apartment buildings and condominiums. Indoor smoking bans usually include public areas such as hallways and lobbies. Now the prohibitionists want to go into smokers' living rooms and remove the ashtrays.

As usual in such efforts, activists are launching the battle in an arena where they have a lot of support and some genuine leverage - - public housing. In Seattle, where an indoor smoking ban went into effect a year ago, some are asking why nonsmoking tenants of public housing apartments have to suffer with their neighbors' second-hand smoke. They point out that those who rely on public housing have fewer housing options than renters in other situations and can't move to other digs. It makes for a good argument, but it's another slippery slope. If it makes sense for public housing apartments, why not extend it to privately owned apartment buildings?

Once it's accepted practice to ban smoking in rental homes because of smoke drifting under the door, across the hallway and under the door into a neighboring unit, what's to stop the prohibitionists from applying the same logic to single-family dwellings? After all, if a homeowner is sitting on his deck on a summer evening enjoying an after-dinner smoke and the smoke drifts into his neighbor's window, isn't that the same thing?

It's not that we're unsympathetic to those with smoke allergies or pulmonary conditions that make exposure to smoke a concern. But the reality is that there is only so much that can be done to limit environmental exposure to things that aggravate those conditions. In the case of public housing, it's perfectly fine for government to set smoking rules in the units; government is the landlord. In Seattle, the King County Housing Authority is dealing with health and sensitivity concerns by making some buildings smoke-free while leaving others available to smokers. That's a plan that could be applied by private landlords as well, taking away one of the prohibitionists' main arguments (assuming the landlord owns multiple buildings). But it should be the decision of property owners, not government.

Too many times, anti-smoking activists aren't satisfied with a reasonable accommodation and push for an all-or-nothing plan that leaves smokers and property owners out in the cold. Doing so infringes on the owners' right to use his property as he sees fit. And if we allow government to limit property rights in the all- powerful name of protecting health, where will it end? New York City has already banned trans fats from restaurants; will other cities and states hop aboard that train? Or will some ban trans fats from pre-packaged foods on store shelves? Enacting bans in the interest of protecting health removes individuals' freedom of choice and responsibility for their own well being. It's a slippery slope, indeed, and it starts at our own front doors.

Amtrak gravy train keeps rolling along

In his final two years in office, a president is often referred to as a lame duck, especially if the opposition party is in control of Congress. Lines the president has drawn in the past are ignored, as Congress does what it wants and dares the resident of the Oval Office to use his veto pen. That certainly seemed to be the case Tuesday when Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Trent Lott of Mississippi shook hands across the aisle and proposed a bipartisan dip into taxpayers' pockets to prop up the failing Amtrak system.

In past years, President Bush has asked for smaller Amtrak subsidies than railroad officials and supporters say is needed to run their train set. Now that Bush is on his way out, the two senators saw this as an opportunity to inject more tax dollars into Amtrak than Congress has approved in the past. Their legislation would provide $19.2 billion over six years to try to get passenger rail service back on track in this country.